Contents: PART I. PHILOSOPHICAL EXPLANATIONS OF CREATIVITY AND CONSCIOUSNESS. Krystyna ZAMIARA: The psychological approach to creativity. A critical appraisal. Rick L. FRANKLIN: Creativity and depth in understanding. Zdzis??l??awa PIATEK: Creativity of life and F.W. Nietzsche's idea of Superman. Jaromír JANOUSEK: Dialogue and joint activity: A psychological approach. Krystyna ZAMIARA: Some remarks on Piaget's notion of "consciousness" and its importance for the studies of culture. Anna GA??L??DOWA, and Aleksander NELICKI: Attitudes towards values as a factor determining creativity. PART II. THE ROLE (...) OF CREATIVITY IN THE THEORY-BUILDING. Leszek NOWAK: On creativity in theory-building. Izabella NOWAK: Discovery and correspondence. A contribution to the idealizational approach to science. Jerzy BRZEZI??N??SKI: Research process in psychology in the context of the researcher's methodological consciousness. Andrzej FALKOWSKI: Cognitive similarity in scientific discovery: An ecological approach. PART III: CONSCIOUSNESS IN HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE. Kathleen V. WILKES: Inside insight. Franco DI MARIA, and Gioacchino LAVANCO: History and epistemology of the unconscious. Franco DI MARIA, and Gioacchino LAVANCO: Conscious/unconscious and group-analysis. Banjamin WALLACE, Andrzej KOKOSZKA, and Deanna D. TUROSKY: Historical and contemporary thoughts on consciousness and its altered states. PART IV. BETWEEN EXPRESSION AND PROJECTION. Micha??l?? STASIAKIEWICZ: Creativity and projection: Paradigm opposition and implicit correspondence. Anna BRZEZI??N??SKA: Creative expression versus projection. PART V. THE ROLE OF PSYCHOPHYSIOLOGICAL COMPONENTS IN EXPLANATION OF PHENOMENA OF CONSCIOUSNESS AND CREATIVITY. Mario BUNGE: Explaining creativity. Piotr WOLSKI: Hemispheric asymmetry and consciousness. Is there any relationship? Andrzej KOKOSZKA: A rationale for psychology of consciousness. PSYCHOLOGICAL EXPLANATIONS OF CREATIVITY AND CONSCIOUSNESS. Santo DI NUOVO: Consciousness and attention. Tomasz MARUSZEWSKI: Two looks on consciousness. Is there any interface between philosophy of science and psychology? Marek KOWALCZYK: On the question of the functions of consciousness. Dean Keith SIMONTON: From childhood giftedness to creative genius. Magdalena FAFROWICZ, Tadeusz MAREK, and Czes??l??aw NOWOROL: Effectiveness of innovation as a function of creative style of behavior and type of leadership. Mark A. RUNCO, and Joni RADIO GAYNOR: Creativity and optimal development. (shrink)
Models and Tests : Contributions to the Quantitative Psychology and Its Methodology Jerzy Brzeziński, Tadeusz Marek. Marek Gaul INTERACTIONAL MODELS IN BEHAVIORAL RESEARCH Testing interaction on non-interval level of ...
For most of the history of prejudice research, negativity has been treated as its emotional and cognitive signature, a conception that continues to dominate work on the topic. By this definition, prejudice occurs when we dislike or derogate members of other groups. Recent research, however, has highlighted the need for a more nuanced and (Eagly 2004) perspective on the role of intergroup emotions and beliefs in sustaining discrimination. On the one hand, several independent lines of research have shown that unequal (...) intergroup relations are often marked by attitudinal complexity, with positive responses such as affection and admiration mingling with negative responses such as contempt and resentment. Simple antipathy is the exception rather than the rule. On the other hand, there is mounting evidence that nurturing bonds of affection between the advantaged and the disadvantaged sometimes entrenches rather than disrupts wider patterns of discrimination. Notably, prejudice reduction interventions may have ironic effects on the political attitudes of the historically disadvantaged, decreasing their perceptions of injustice and willingness to engage in collective action to transform social inequalities. (shrink)
This response clarifies, qualifies, and develops our critique of the limits of intergroup liking as a means of challenging intergroup inequality. It does not dispute that dominant groups may espouse negative attitudes towards subordinate groups. Nor does it dispute that prejudice reduction can be an effective way of tackling resulting forms of intergroup hostility. What it does dispute is the assumption that getting dominant group members and subordinate group members to like each other more is the best way of improving (...) intergroup relations that are characterized by relatively stable, institutionally embedded, relations of inequality. In other words, the main target of our critique is the model of change that underlies prejudice reduction interventions and the mainstream concept of on which they are based. (shrink)
Terence Horgan's "contextual semantics" is supposed to be a means to avoid unwanted ontological commitments, in particular commitments to non-physical objects, such as institutions, theories and symphonies. The core of contextual semantics is the claim that truth is correct assertibility, and that there are various standards of correct assertibility, the standards of "referential semantics" being only one among others. I am investigating the notions of correct assertibility,assertibility norms and indirect reference. I argue that closer inspection reveals that contextual semantics ultimately (...) amounts – contra Horgan's intentions – to a paraphrase strategy. I defend an ontological commitment to theories and symphonies. (shrink)
In a paper entitled “Computer Composition and Works of Music: Variation on a Theme of Ingarden” (1988), Peter Simons explores some ontological problems that ensue from the use of certain forms of composition software, where the final outcome (the score) is the product of random processes within the computer. Such a method of composition raises, among others, the following questions: What kind of work (if any) has been created? Is it a work of music in the first place? Who is (...) the composer/author? Is it the software programmer, the user, the one who selects a particular score for public performance, the computer? What is the relationship of distinct products of the same programme? Are they instances of the same work? In this paper, I shall re-examine these questions. (shrink)
Marx extrapolated the relations of production of the factories of his time into his predictions about the development of the working class. These predictions are among the most important theses of Marxism-Leninism relative to the socialist world-revolution which the working class was to carry out. The physics of Marx' era was not very developed. Marx could have no inkling of the future development of physics and of its application to technology. This is why his predictions had to be in simple (...) and direct proportion to the development of the relations of production of the time. Industry developed -- thanks in part to the development of physics -- in ways other than Marx had suspected. The use of modern physics, leading to cybernetics and automation, gradually changed the workers from forces of production to supervisory engineers. Were one to undertake today an extrapolation like that which Marx carried out, one would have to see as highly probable the disappearance of the very working class that Marx saw as carrying out the world-revolution. (shrink)
This paper is a commentary on David Woodruff Smith's "Intentionality and Picturing: Early Husserl vis-à-vis Early Wittgenstein" (S J Phil 40 (Supp), 2002). I address three questions: 1. What is a fact according to Wittgenstein? What is the relation between states of affairs on the one hand and facts on the other? Is a fact an existing state of affairs (as Smith suggests), or is it the existence of a state of affairs, as most of Wittgenstein's remarks on this matter (...) in the _Tractatus suggest? The difference becomes especially important when negative facts are under consideration. 2. How far goes the parallelism between Husserl's and Wittgenstein's models of the thought-language-world relation really? In particular: Is there anything in Wittgenstein that corresponds to Husserl's ideal senses? Do Wittgenstein's thoughts play that role? 3. Do ideal senses have an explanatory function? (shrink)
Experiences are interpreted as conscious mental occurrences that are of phenomenal character. There is already a kind of (weak) intentionality involved with this phenomenal interpretation. A stricter conception of experiences distinguishes between purely phenomenal experiences and intentional experiences in a narrow sense. Wittgenstein’s account of psychological (experiential) verbs is taken over: Usually, expressing mental states verbally is not describing them. According to this, I believe can be seen as an expression of one’s own belief, but not as an expression of (...) a belief about one’s belief. Hence, the utterance I believe it is raining shows that I believe that it is raining, although it is not said by these words that I believe that it is raining. Thinking thoughts such as I believe it is raining, but it is not raining (a variant of Moore’s paradox) is an absurdity between what is already said by silently uttering It is not raining and what is shown by silently uttering I believe it is raining. The paper agrees with a main result of Wittgenstein’s considerations of Moore’s paradox, namely the view that logical structure, deducibility, and consistency cannot be reduced solely to propositions—besides a logic of propositions, there is, for example, a logic of assertions and of imperatives, respectively. (shrink)
Marx extrapolated the relations of production of the factories of his time into his predictions about the development of the working class. These predictions are among the most important theses of Marxism-Leninism relative to the socialist world-revolution which the working class was to carry out.The physics of Marx'' era was not very developed. Marx could have no inkling of the future development of physics and of its application to technology. This is why his predictions had to be in simple and (...) direct proportion to the development of the relations of production of the time. (shrink)
Alexius Meinong's specific use of the term "self-presentation" had a significant influence on modern epistemology and philosophical psychology. To show that there are remarkable parallels between Meinong's account of the self-presentation of experiences and Lehrer's account of the exemplarization of experiences is one of this paper's main objectives. Another objective is to put forward some comments and critical remarks to Lehrer's approach. One of the main problems can be expressed by the following: The process of using a particular experience as (...) a sample, that is, an exemplar that we use to stand for and refer to a plurality of experiences, Lehrer calls "exemplarization". As concrete experiences are multifarious (red and round, for example), how can we single out a specific sort of experiences (the red ones) by the process of exemplarization when we use such a multifarious experience as a sample? (shrink)
This book concerns the history of Austrian philosophy, including the Vienna Circle, Wittgenstein, Meinong, Brentano, and Haller. It exhibits the continuity of empiricism and analysis in Austrian philosophy past and present.
From the perspective of Marek J. Siemek’s theory of modernity, one of the most important problem is to include conflicts into institutional framework of the modern society. He reinterprets Hegel’s dialectics of the struggle for recognition by conceptual tools of Hobbes and Marx in order to uncover hidden assumptions and conditions of possibility of the social rationality. For Siemek, law as purely formal, autopoetic social system or social subject (intersubjective automaton), which produces individual subjects (persona in the sense of (...) Roman law), is the first of the conditions of possibility of modernity. The second one is the convergence of formal and material presuppositions (such as recognition and labor) of law—or, speaking generally—the convergence of form and content of the social reason. Form and content, facticity and normativity, instrumentality and communicativity (or teleology) are aspects of the process of rationalization andof the only one reason, self-generating in the history. So for Siemek, the Hegelian model of the struggle for recognition gains its theoretical power only when it is interpreted from the perspective of economical, technical and legal rationalization of modernity. Only such perspective is able to construct “the transcendental social philosophy” which starts from critique of “the non-instrumental reason”. (shrink)
The paper discusses with critical intent Marek J. Siemek’s conception of transcendental philosophy. Firstly, theory of knowledge does not belong to the epistemic level of reflection but it is precisely the other way around; namely, it is due to transcendental philosophy that it was possible to distinguish metaphysical, ontological and epistemological questions. Secondly, transcendental philosophy enables us to discriminate between the ontological and epistemological questions and, as a result, to take up within its scope traditional epistemological questions such as (...) adequacy of cognition. Thirdly, Siemek’s Fichtean interpretation of transcendental philosophy is untenable. It overestimates the role of spontaneity and practical moment in the constitution of the world and underestimates the receptive moment in cognition. It seems that more plausible way of understanding transcendental philosophy can be found in the writings of the Marburg School of neo-Kantianism where within the field of transcendental consciousness more objectified meanings and subject as such are being constituted. (shrink)
From the perspective of Marek J. Siemek’s theory of modernity, one of the most important problem is to include conflicts into institutional framework of the modern society. He reinterprets Hegel’s dialectics of the struggle for recognition by conceptual tools of Hobbes and Marx in order to uncover hidden assumptions and conditions of possibility of the social rationality. For Siemek, law as purely formal, autopoetic social system or social subject, which produces individual subjects, is the first of the conditions of (...) possibility of modernity. The second one is the convergence of formal and material presuppositions of law—or, speaking generally—the convergence of form and content of the social reason. Form and content, facticity and normativity, instrumentality and communicativity are aspects of the process of rationalization andof the only one reason, self-generating in the history. So for Siemek, the Hegelian model of the struggle for recognition gains its theoretical power only when it is interpreted from the perspective of economical, technical and legal rationalization of modernity. Only such perspective is able to construct “the transcendental social philosophy” which starts from critique of “the non-instrumental reason”. (shrink)